"Yes to Libya", not "no to the USA" is one of those strange articles that the AWL produce due to a confused position on imperialism.
Imperialist powers, like Britain, are pushing for a no-fly zone for an obvious reason to control Libya's oil. It is absolutely clear that we as socialists should oppose this. It is also absolutely clear that we should support the Libyan rebels and working class of Benghazi and Tripoli in opposing Gaddafi. An imperialist imposed no-fly zone would certainly not be in the interests of the Libyan revolution or freedom for Libya's workers and poor- it would help an elite rule on behalf of imperialism.
The article is confused- on the one hand it argues, that US or UK intervention deserves no positive support. But then asks is it our job to oppose it and answers - no.
Well actually, yes! We should be for the arming of Libyan rebels, including surface to air missiles but no to any imperialist troops, planes or wepaons under imperialist control.
Jason
And who would hand over surface to air missiles [to the Libyan rebels] except armies under imperialist control? Is such a thing as an anti-imperialist no-fly zone a possibility?
"An imperialist imposed no-fly zone would certainly not be in the interests of the Libyan revolution ..." Well, that is not what the so-called Libyan revolution thinks - increasingly they seem to think it is a good idea.
Why? Because they are more sensible than you, their lives are at stake, and can see an "imperialist imposed no-fly zone" might stop them being wiped out.
Why don't we call for a no-fly zone? Because we don't want to take responsibility for it (it would not be under our control, it would come with all sorts of other baggage attached, it would come as part of an overall bourgeois policy...) On the other hand, if the imperialists do something to stop the 'Libyan revolution' being murdered (for their own reasons, of course), why would we denounce them?
All of this - these political positions - come down, don't they, to what we do, and what we say: what we tell other people to do. Should we be organising, or supporting, or telling other people to attend, protests like Stop the War's which are focused on 'no intervention!' or 'no imperialist intervention!' or some such? I just don't see how we could with a clear conscience. I don't see how they can. They can tell themselves that somehow they would not, if they succeeded, be stranding the Libyan rebels without a hope. But that's self-consoling nonsense, isn't it?
(The peculiar twist to it is that what's actually happening is that imperialism is *not* intervening to stop Gadaffi).
For me the reality is that there simply isn't much we can do.
One thing we can do is not make it our sole point of principle to denounce imperialism for doing what they're actually not doing anyway. (If you think of the range of basic positions on military intervention as 'support', 'not support', 'oppose' and 'not oppose', we should do the last of the these four).
What can also do is build solidarity with the left and the workers' movement in Tunisia, Egypt and elsewhere, to try to limit the terrible consequences of a Gadaffi victory, should it happen.
Clive
It is important to build solidarity with the left and organised workers in Libya, Egypt, Tunisia.
Clive is right that without a much more militant workers' movement there is not much the left here can do- it is of course deeply frustrating. However, there are people, Libyan exiles, going to Libya- I met one yesterday for example, going to free Benghazi. We can continue to demonstrate on the anti Gaddafi demonstrations and we can make sure that any Stop the War protest, or at least the contingent, we are on is clearly in solidarity with the Libyan revolution. That would be hard to do if we don't go on the demonstrations- are the AWL comrades suggesting abstaining from or not getting involved in demonstrations against imperialist intervention in Libya?
It is perfectly understandable that Libyan rebels who are being bombed by Gadaffi ask for help in taking out his planes. They are right to do so. The important point is to have any such technology, expertise and assistance under the control of the Libyan rebels not imperialism. You say this is unrealistic. May be so.
But that would be the point of large demonstrations on the streets to say, "Hands off the Libyan revolution! Imperialist troops out of Libya!"
These are not the sole extent of what we say on Libya though. That is why we go on and will continue to go on demonstrations against Gaddafi and in favour of the Libyan revolt and give assistance to their cause in whatever small way we can.
It is frustrating that whatever we say other things happen but the whole point of being socialists is to battle within the working class for ideas, to win workers to action, to win the mass of the working class to actions which can liberate us whether in Libya or London from the chains of capital. We may have along way to go but the struggle for socialist ideas and politics whilst not promising any quick fixes is not insignificant or forlorn- it, along with practical solidarity and action, is what we need to do.
Jason
There are times when it makes sense to me to mobilise against imperialist invasion even though the immediate effect, if we are successful, would be to leave a dictator in power. Take Iraq. The 'pro-war left' were right, on a certain level, to say that if the anti-war movement succeeded Saddam would be left in power.
But I think we were right to participate in the anti-war movement, with our own anti-Saddam slogans, nonetheless, because there remained a realistic possibility of a movement of the Iraqi people themselves against the dictator, and stopping the war then didn't mean simply permitting massacre; and because the war which was about to happen was one of full-scale invasion and occupation of Iraq, which even if it removed Saddam was likely to go horribly wrong because of the character of the invaders.
If what was on the table now was another full-scale invasion and occupation - which you'd think it was from the way much of the left talk - we would be right to oppose it again.
If the US etc *were* to set-up a no-fly zone, whatever that might mean in practice (and none of us are really qualified, are we, to make detailed comment on such things), it would be reasonable to make general comment on how imperialism isn't to be trusted, warn against further involvement, and so on. But *campaign* against it - try to stop it? Rather than facing up to our weakness, that is simply to construct an ideological fantasy in which by saying certain words we can make happen what we want: pretending we can 'stop imperialism' and assist the Libyan revolution. It's pretty much literally just chanting magic spells.
If Gaddafi is stopped, that would be, all other things being equal, good from the point of view of the revolution in the rest of the Middle East.
Clive
In the event of an imperialist intervention e.g. US planes entering Libyan airspace it is quite likely that US troops would follow. In that circumstance it would be important to raise the slogan- now it would be a matter of against the clamouring for US/UK control of oil resources.
Currently, the main focus of international workers' solidarity is clearly to support the Libyan rebels, against Gadaffi. I think I was clear on this. You objected to my saying we should be for the arming of Libyan rebels but I think under the circumstances they are that is exactly what is needed- for volunteers and arms from neighbouring Arab countries and for where possible donations from collections amongst exile communities and solidarity groups here.
If the US etc. imposed a no-fly zone it would be important to demonstrate not only in solidarity with the Libyan revolt but also for no imperialist troops in Libya and for any military aid to be strictly under the control of the Libyan rebels.
Jason
Western military intervention isn't my answer to the existing problem. I don't have the means to impose my answer. But it seems to me the least I can do is not seriously try to stop the one thing which today, tomorrow or the day after might save lives and prevent Gaddafi from re-establishing his power over the whole of Libya. I don't have to buy into any ideological claims the Western powers make, or lose sight of who and what they are.
Clive
